I also think the legislators in question ought to undergo a pelvic ultrasound themselves. Are they aware part of the process requires having a full bladder? This means you have to drink something like two litres of water about an hour before the ultrasound is due. Then they *push down* on the region of your bladder, so on top of having a stranger peering at your lower abdomen (which is a fairly private region for most people) you’re also having to fight not to damn well piss all over them. The full bladder bit is necessary so the ultrasound tech can tell which bit *is* your bladder, rather than guessing. Yays. (No, mine was in order to check everything was in order internally – I had a GP for a time who wanted to know everything inside and out).

What? Pushing an uncomfortable and probably unnecessary medical procedure on someone is unethical? Well, in that case, get that bloody “compulsory ultrasounds” legislation out of the statute books.

(the Joplin Globe published Karley’s hilarious letter to the editor. Read it.)

Mores the shame that what happens in the good ole US of A is so often immitated in other countries. Our Govt has recently decided to emphasise that marriage is only ever a situation where a man can lord it over his woman, in Australia… so it’s no surprise that our Sydney Anglican PM hasn’t tabled any plans to bring abortion or child-rearing legislation into the 21st century.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-dana-stone/oklahomas-anti-abortion-b_b_97672.html

http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_115213627.html

Of course, she has the Planned Parenthood Abortionist Cooties, so they’ll be on her like a flock of crazed seagulls.

Just to nitpic because I think its important to pick out, your statement, “…unfairly impact women living in poverty, women of color, rural women, women whose autonomy has been impacted by domestic violence, living children, multiple jobs…”

I’m not sure, but I don’t know how being a woman of color in and of itself, outside of other circumstances would automatically disadvantage a woman in this situation.

I’d say that all women, of whatever “color” are necessarily disadvantaged when economics, geographic remoteness, family support system and whatever else come into play. I may be wrong, but I’d imagine an upper or middle class woman of “color” would enjoy the same advantages of her “white” counterparts.

This is a common error of thinking that I think needs to be called out. Might I also add that economics is the main issue from which all the other factors usually spring from.

I’d go farther and say that economics plays a huge role in the power of the fundie/pro-life movement and disempowering women by tying them to child rearing feeds the culture.